Trial reportClinical and translational gastroenterology2025
Iodine Staining With Distance Countdown Improving the Safety for Reduction of Adverse Events: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Clinical and translational gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionLugol chromoendoscopy (LCE) is valuable, cost-effective, and widely used in early esophageal cancer screening, yet it suffers from low compliance because of adverse events after LCE. In addition, the reflux of iodine during iodine staining in the upper esophagus brings the risk of bucking and aspiration. We introduced a new model called distance countdown (DC) aimed to reduce reflux during iodine staining in upper esophageal LCE.
methodsIn this randomized controlled trial, 204 patients were randomized into the DC and No-DC groups. The primary end point was the difference in the incidence of positive starch reagent reaction (iodine solution reflux) between the 2 groups. The secondary end points were the comparisons of the incidence of other adverse events after LCE between the 2 groups.
resultsThe rate of iodine solution reflux was 1.0% in the DC group and 26.5% in the No-DC group ( P < 0.001). Furthermore, the incidences of bucking between the 2 groups were 1.0% and 9.8% ( P = 0.005). LCE satisfaction rates were 78.4% and 76.5% in the DC and No-DC groups ( P = 0.363), respectively. Concerning symptoms after LCE, incidences of sore throat, pharyngeal discomfort or odor, bitter taste, and heartburn were also reduced in the DC group (all P < 0.05). DISCUSSION: Adding DC as an auxiliary effect during LCE would reduce the risk of iodine solution reflux, as well as other adverse events after LCE. Implementing this measure could be beneficial in improving the safety of LCE in early esophageal cancer screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.